Heyo writing this post to talk about the current province exchange system of 1 province per 1 day after 7 days. I don't think I need to provide the background info of why on paper, being able to trade multiple provinces, is good. I've seen this discussed quite a few times already, and I've understood that the changes must be handled delicately, as more experienced players are rightfully concerned about the abuse that follows more liberal ideas. So with this in mind I would like to have another go at suggesting how the current province exchange feature could be changed, and would appreciate the criticism that comes along with such objective. 
1. Remove a player's ability to trade core provinces.
From a gameplay perspective trading a core province can be easily abused on the first day by trading a country's entire land. It also seems to do more harm than good, as the core's bonuses, resource and defence, provide too much of a benefit to give away for threats, land exchange or 500 oil
(someone agreed to do this). It seems to be a feature the more wiser can use to exploit newer players.
From a context perspective it wouldn't make sense, how would a country's leader get away with the insult of giving away territory, that likely has historical significance/dominant native population, to a foreign power willingly without be booted from their political party?
2. Create a delay before territory is received 12hrs-2 days. Preventing construction of buildings and resource collection/province registration between both parties.
Gameplay-wise, this delay would prevent immediate and rapid expansion of a country. So just to clarify, if country A traded their province with country B, the province would go into a 'grey province', it would be removed from their list of provinces, they would no longer have control over what to build and resources/VPs woulds not be received. Player A could however retake the province by attacking this province during the waiting period (the province would be treated as a right of way country, however Player A attacking this province would not automatically trigger war with Player B, but would reduce Player A's global popularity). Player B can put troops in the 'grey states' without fear of starting wars with Player A, however Player B would not receive any benefits (movement speed) or province registration until the timer has passed, whereby the province would be put under their control.
From a context viewpoint, it adds a sense of realism as there would be an expected delay in transferring villages, populations and cities to another ruler (ie new rules put in place, new reforms made, new local authorities established).
3. Have global popularity determine the likelihood of revolt from province exchange. Provinces that you trade would have a chance to revolt, if not suppressed, back to the original giving away party after the 'grey province' timer expires. This chance would be linked to positive popularity (>50%) with likelihood increasing as popularity increases. Alternatively, negative popularity (<50%) of the receiving country, would influence the grey state's decision, to revolt if not suppressed by the receiving or giving player.
Gameplay-wise, this puts more relevance on global popularity and slows expansion of aggressive players through political routes. Context-wise, it makes sense that provinces/citizens wouldn't want to leave a country that has a good reputation, and willingly join a country that is know for violence and exploitation.
4. Nerf ability to trade victory points. After a 'grey state' timer runs out and the province doesn't revolt, it should remain as a grey 'state' indefinitely until it is invaded, or the accepting country sends units (possibly limited to the infantry branch) to claim the city.
Gameplay-wise, this regulates a countries ability to receive VP's and ultimately win, without having any military influence. It would also prevent a country from immediately establishing a recruitment base and producing an army on the other side of the world without putting activity and strategy into the game (assuming the giving player has no strategy of their own).
Context wise, cities would have the most influence in a region, and you wouldn't expect a country to say yea "I'm going to sell hongkong to you" and not expect major backlash from the dense and influential population, without having the colonising country establish an equally large influence (in the presence of urban military occupation) that can go to door to, and establish itself as the legitimate government.
*Player A- The person who is giving their territory to someone
*Player B- The person in a trade who is receiving territory.
*Grey state- A province that once traded remains neutral for a set period of time, any player can enter this province and capture it, if unoccupied, without the declaration of war. All players in this province will have a speed debuff with the exception of player A. If player A decides to recapture the Grey state pre and post revolt they will suffer a global popularity loss. Revolts for grey states will be similar to current in game mechanics, for more details see point three.
Now we move onto the buffs.
5. Add a 'liberation feature'. A mechanic whereby ground units can be set to automatically return captured core province territory to the original country.
Game-play wise, this rewards and encourages players to remain active in the game, as allies can easily restore territory giving a greater chance for your country to be restored to it's former glory if you can just 'hang on' . This feature is similarly present in team events and so it wouldn't be a bad idea to make this optional in regular games and allow players to choose who to support and restore. Additionally, why not also apply this to AI countries? Restoring AI countries' core provinces would significantly increase their relationship with you and slightly improve global popularity, and on the very unlikely chance the ai whose status with you is set to share map, invades one of your captured core the territory, it would be restored back to you.
Context-wise, it would seem appropriate that countries could easily give back territory to allies should they so choose to. It's strange how currently to return territory with the current province mechanics, you would have to either wait 3 'in game days' (1day irl = 3days in game), to restore one region at the most, at a time, meaning leaders would have to be on the landline each and every day to oversee the painfully slow restoration after an oppressive foreign government has been removed.
6. Significantly increase the limit of non-core province if not infinite trades per day.
Game-play wise, this suggestion isn't new. However if the current province trade mechanic is nerfed, this feature would significantly improve the player's experience with land trades, and concessional demands. It also gives players the option to reduce their responsibility of maintaining and worrying about newly captured territory, which instead could be sold/given to other nations to manage the front for you.
Context wise, similar to what has been said in point five, world leaders shouldn't have to been in direct communication throughout the entirety of a land exchange. Instead it should be decided upon in a meeting and agreed by treaties and pacts, that left to original intentions, would see the eventual transfer of land. Furthermore, why shouldn't a player whose captured territory and won victories, have an immediate say on how much of someone's territory belong to the person of their choosing.
That's all I got for the moment
would love to hear from the community and see any of these features considered, just to give the province trading mechanic some love, and to really remove the unnecessary red tape (ie having to declare war on a country to exchange more than 1 province).
1. Remove a player's ability to trade core provinces.
From a gameplay perspective trading a core province can be easily abused on the first day by trading a country's entire land. It also seems to do more harm than good, as the core's bonuses, resource and defence, provide too much of a benefit to give away for threats, land exchange or 500 oil
(someone agreed to do this). It seems to be a feature the more wiser can use to exploit newer players.From a context perspective it wouldn't make sense, how would a country's leader get away with the insult of giving away territory, that likely has historical significance/dominant native population, to a foreign power willingly without be booted from their political party?
2. Create a delay before territory is received 12hrs-2 days. Preventing construction of buildings and resource collection/province registration between both parties.
Gameplay-wise, this delay would prevent immediate and rapid expansion of a country. So just to clarify, if country A traded their province with country B, the province would go into a 'grey province', it would be removed from their list of provinces, they would no longer have control over what to build and resources/VPs woulds not be received. Player A could however retake the province by attacking this province during the waiting period (the province would be treated as a right of way country, however Player A attacking this province would not automatically trigger war with Player B, but would reduce Player A's global popularity). Player B can put troops in the 'grey states' without fear of starting wars with Player A, however Player B would not receive any benefits (movement speed) or province registration until the timer has passed, whereby the province would be put under their control.
From a context viewpoint, it adds a sense of realism as there would be an expected delay in transferring villages, populations and cities to another ruler (ie new rules put in place, new reforms made, new local authorities established).
3. Have global popularity determine the likelihood of revolt from province exchange. Provinces that you trade would have a chance to revolt, if not suppressed, back to the original giving away party after the 'grey province' timer expires. This chance would be linked to positive popularity (>50%) with likelihood increasing as popularity increases. Alternatively, negative popularity (<50%) of the receiving country, would influence the grey state's decision, to revolt if not suppressed by the receiving or giving player.
Gameplay-wise, this puts more relevance on global popularity and slows expansion of aggressive players through political routes. Context-wise, it makes sense that provinces/citizens wouldn't want to leave a country that has a good reputation, and willingly join a country that is know for violence and exploitation.
4. Nerf ability to trade victory points. After a 'grey state' timer runs out and the province doesn't revolt, it should remain as a grey 'state' indefinitely until it is invaded, or the accepting country sends units (possibly limited to the infantry branch) to claim the city.
Gameplay-wise, this regulates a countries ability to receive VP's and ultimately win, without having any military influence. It would also prevent a country from immediately establishing a recruitment base and producing an army on the other side of the world without putting activity and strategy into the game (assuming the giving player has no strategy of their own).
Context wise, cities would have the most influence in a region, and you wouldn't expect a country to say yea "I'm going to sell hongkong to you" and not expect major backlash from the dense and influential population, without having the colonising country establish an equally large influence (in the presence of urban military occupation) that can go to door to, and establish itself as the legitimate government.
*Player A- The person who is giving their territory to someone
*Player B- The person in a trade who is receiving territory.
*Grey state- A province that once traded remains neutral for a set period of time, any player can enter this province and capture it, if unoccupied, without the declaration of war. All players in this province will have a speed debuff with the exception of player A. If player A decides to recapture the Grey state pre and post revolt they will suffer a global popularity loss. Revolts for grey states will be similar to current in game mechanics, for more details see point three.
Now we move onto the buffs.
5. Add a 'liberation feature'. A mechanic whereby ground units can be set to automatically return captured core province territory to the original country.
Game-play wise, this rewards and encourages players to remain active in the game, as allies can easily restore territory giving a greater chance for your country to be restored to it's former glory if you can just 'hang on' . This feature is similarly present in team events and so it wouldn't be a bad idea to make this optional in regular games and allow players to choose who to support and restore. Additionally, why not also apply this to AI countries? Restoring AI countries' core provinces would significantly increase their relationship with you and slightly improve global popularity, and on the very unlikely chance the ai whose status with you is set to share map, invades one of your captured core the territory, it would be restored back to you.
Context-wise, it would seem appropriate that countries could easily give back territory to allies should they so choose to. It's strange how currently to return territory with the current province mechanics, you would have to either wait 3 'in game days' (1day irl = 3days in game), to restore one region at the most, at a time, meaning leaders would have to be on the landline each and every day to oversee the painfully slow restoration after an oppressive foreign government has been removed.
6. Significantly increase the limit of non-core province if not infinite trades per day.
Game-play wise, this suggestion isn't new. However if the current province trade mechanic is nerfed, this feature would significantly improve the player's experience with land trades, and concessional demands. It also gives players the option to reduce their responsibility of maintaining and worrying about newly captured territory, which instead could be sold/given to other nations to manage the front for you.
Context wise, similar to what has been said in point five, world leaders shouldn't have to been in direct communication throughout the entirety of a land exchange. Instead it should be decided upon in a meeting and agreed by treaties and pacts, that left to original intentions, would see the eventual transfer of land. Furthermore, why shouldn't a player whose captured territory and won victories, have an immediate say on how much of someone's territory belong to the person of their choosing.
That's all I got for the moment
would love to hear from the community and see any of these features considered, just to give the province trading mechanic some love, and to really remove the unnecessary red tape (ie having to declare war on a country to exchange more than 1 province). Make HWW all in, a staple gamemode 
